These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10455204)

  • 1. Observer variation in cytologic grading for cervical dysplasia of Papanicolaou smears with the PAPNET testing system.
    Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; van den Tweel JG
    Cancer; 1999 Aug; 87(4):178-83. PubMed ID: 10455204
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. PAPNET testing for HSILs. The few cell/small cell challenge.
    Solomon HM; Frist S
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):253-9. PubMed ID: 9479348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears.
    Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD
    Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Negative cervical smears before CIN 3/carcinoma. Reevaluation with the PAPNET Testing System.
    Doornewaard H; van de Seijp H; Woudt JM; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):74-8. PubMed ID: 9022729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Rescreen effect in conventional and PAPNET screening: observed in a study using material enriched with positive smears.
    van Ballegooijen M; Beck S; Boon ME; Boer R; Habbema JD
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(5):1133-8. PubMed ID: 9755670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. A comparison.
    Mango LJ; Valente PT
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 9479345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study.
    Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG
    Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Differences between false-negative and true-positive Papanicolaou smears on Papnet-assisted review.
    Mitchell H; Medley G
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Aug; 19(2):138-40. PubMed ID: 9702494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of PAPNET testing as an ancillary tool to clarify the status of the "atypical" cervical smear.
    Sherman ME; Schiffman MH; Mango LJ; Kelly D; Acosta D; Cason Z; Elgert P; Zaleski S; Scott DR; Kurman RJ; Stoler M; Lorincz AT
    Mod Pathol; 1997 Jun; 10(6):564-71. PubMed ID: 9195573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Consistency of a double PAPNET scan of cervical smears.
    Jenny J; Isenegger I; Boon ME; Husain OA
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):82-7. PubMed ID: 9022731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma.
    Sherman ME; Mango LJ; Kelly D; Paull G; Ludin V; Copeland C; Solomon D; Schiffman MH
    Mod Pathol; 1994 Jun; 7(5):578-81. PubMed ID: 7937724
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Prospective and randomised public-health trial on neural network-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: results of the first year.
    Nieminen P; Hakama M; Viikki M; Tarkkanen J; Anttila A
    Int J Cancer; 2003 Jan; 103(3):422-6. PubMed ID: 12471627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience.
    Brotzman GL; Kretzchmar S; Ferguson D; Gottlieb M; Stowe C
    Arch Fam Med; 1999; 8(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 9932072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evaluation of the PAPNET system in a general pathology service.
    Farnsworth A; Chambers FM; Goldschmidt CS
    Med J Aust; 1996 Oct; 165(8):429-31. PubMed ID: 8913244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
    Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
    Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. PAPNET. The human and other dimensions.
    Husain OA; Kocjan G; Butler EB; McGloin JE
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(5):1439-44. PubMed ID: 9305381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
    O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
    JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
    Sherman ME; Schiffman M; Herrero R; Kelly D; Bratti C; Mango LJ; Alfaro M; Hutchinson ML; Mena F; Hildesheim A; Morales J; Greenberg MD; Balmaceda I; Lorincz AT
    Cancer; 1998 Oct; 84(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 9801201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. PRISMATIC Project Management Team.
    Lancet; 1999 Apr; 353(9162):1381-5. PubMed ID: 10227217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25,656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening.
    Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
    Cytopathology; 1999 Oct; 10(5):317-23. PubMed ID: 10588350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.